Dear Prime Minister,
I am taking the privilege of writing to you again concerning the reply I received to my letter to you dated 29th January, 1989, in which I expressed anxiety about the crimes perpetrated against my mentally handicapped brother. I enclose a copy of the reply for your perusal and consideration.
From my point of view it is entirely unsatisfactory.
At the outset I should like to know who "J.P. Stockton" is.
What status or standing has he in the Judiciary? It is not apparent from his letter what function he has or whom he represents. On whose authority did he answer my letter to you?
What is obvious is the fact that he has, without question or investigation, accepted the "full reply from the Legal Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice", as representing the true facts in my brother's case. I dispute this latter premise, and with good reason, as I suspect that the Legal Secretary's reply was inspired and contrived by Mr. Brian Hall, ex-Official Solicitor and now Master in the Care and Protection Office.
At no time, I repeat, at no time during his stewardship as Official Solicitor, did Mr. Brian Hall act in the best interests of the Patient, my mentally handicapped brother. On the contrary, Mr. Hall's tenure of office was characterised by a desire on his part to placate the criminals!
At one Court Hearing he even went so far as to praise Mr. Herbert Wright for his skill in selling Word-processors!! This epitomises the depth to which Mr. Hall will sink in his endeavours to cover up fraud, forgery, misappropriation and malpractice.
Combined with this technique in the Courts, Mr. Hall also embarked on a programme of vilification of members of the Andrews family. I. personally, was branded as being "bitter and frustrated" because I had to look after my 95 year-old, bed-ridden mother, now deceased, in addition to being responsible for the domestic and personal needs of my mentally handicapped brother. Incidentally I was only too pleased to be able to undertake these filial duties.
His attack on my youngest sister, a widow, took on a more sinister and devious aspect. She was the sole family beneficiary under the terms of my late mother's will. It should be stated here that she has a Court case pending against Messrs Tughan and Co, solicitors, and against Mr. H. Doherty of Cleaver, Fulton and Rankin, also solicitors. Mr. Hall, under what law or authority we do not know, froze the payment of monies due under the terms of the Will and informed my sister she could have the aforementioned monies, together with her Deeds of some town property, provided she withdrew her charges against the above-mentioned solicitors.
What sort of Justice is this - a "horse-deal" or blackmail?
A man, guilty of such behaviour as this, is not a fit person to hold any position of trust.
I could cite further instances of Mr. Hall's unwarranted and indefensible vendetta against the family but I shall leave these to be uncovered by a future Judicial Inquiry which surely is the only just way to resolve this long saga, ten years, of mismanagement of a mental patient's affairs by successive Official Solicitors.
Secrecy, collusion, unaccountability, pleas of confidentiality and inaccessibility - these are the unacceptable faces of the Offices of Official Solicitor and Care and Protection in their handling of the affairs of my mentally handicapped brother.
As far as my own solicitor being fully advised of the position in my brother's case and being able to explain points about which I am still concerned, in as much as this advice and explanation must emanate from Mr. Brian Hall, I would find them suspect and unacceptable.
Concerning an application to the Court for a review of my brother's case, I would not contemplate such a course of action since it would be orchestrated by Mr. Brian Hall and approved by the Judge and thus result in a further perpetration of injustice against my mentally handicapped brother.
Eileen Wright (Mrs.)